There cannot possibly be a more inconceivable, horrific, despicable act than the intentional, close range murder of small, helpless, innocent children in an elementary school class room. I am certain that everyone in the world could agree on that. But as emotions run high people should avoid the natural urge of making an irrational, knee-jerk, unwarranted reaction and doing something really stupid in response. Unfortunately, it appears Americans can't help themselves. The politically correct army of self-righteous, self-appointed airheads is demanding to impose more limits on our freedom, and as usual Barack Obama is leading the charge.
The holier-than-thou, politically correct fanatics are coming out of the woodwork to re-open the debate on banning guns in America. As usual, the legal ownership of guns issue has again careened off into the hysterical and irrational. It is probably news to the zealous, but the fact is laws concerning gun ownership already exist to prevent convicted criminals, domestic abusers and the mentally unstable from acquiring or owning guns. The Connecticut killer was clearly insane. According to the law he should not have had access to a gun. Fifty years ago he probably wouldn't have. Back then the insane were institutionalized. But due in no small part to the 'compassion' of the politically correct morons that is no longer the case. The same people screaming about banning guns are the same ones who told us the mentally ill can be controlled with medication, psychotherapy and encounter groups. Obviously they were tragically wrong.
There is one simple argument that should be easy for everyone to understand. Making the ownership of guns illegal means the only people with guns would be the criminals and other miscreants who could care less about complying with the law. Good grief people, that is what being a criminal means. Thugs, bullies and hoodlums would control the streets. Law abiding citizens would have no means to protect themselves and their families from bad people. It is not difficult for those with violent intent to find guns. Approximately 300 million guns exist today in the US alone. There are few things in the world more available than guns, many a lot more lethal than the kind used by the Connecticut killer. If guns were banned, gun smugglers would become billionaires. Banning guns is nonsense. People sticking their head up their ass will not make bad guys go away.
There have always been mass murderers and serial killers since human beings began living in close proximity to each other. The only real solution is to ban the real life monsters, but of course that is impossible. Evil exists in the world and cannot be eliminated. No one knows where the monsters will strike next, but potential targets can be anticipated. Have the anti-gun folks ever noticed that mass murders mostly take place in designated no-gun zones such as schools, theaters and shopping malls? Does that tell them anything? The only defense is to be armed and prepared to deal with evil if it intends for you to be its next victim. Banning guns would be the equivalent of making everyone a helpless potential target.
Guns have been around for centuries. What is new over the last two decades is the pervasive graphic violence distributed in massive quantities to the younger generations in the form of popular entertainment. Could it possibly be expected that a few of the millions who spend hours every day exposed to this stuff might become impervious to it all? Maybe it would be a good idea to ban the glorification of shameless violence on television and in the movies. Maybe Hollywood should stop producing shows with zombies, vampires, axe wielding psychos and murderous teenagers. How about banning the mindless gore and senseless mayhem with body counts in the thousands generated in best selling video games? They may not be poisoning the brain of everyone who plays them but almost certainly influence the psychopaths among us. Of course taking measures that restrict the distribution of this trash is unlikely to happen since the producers of it are big contributors to the Democratic Party.
While we're at it, lets discuss another issue of destructive human behavior that society has gone ballistic to punish - drunk driving. First of all, no one would disagree with the contention that drunks should not be driving vehicles. The problem is with the definition of drunk. The general definition of drunk is one who is intoxicated with liquor to the point of impairment of physical and mental faculties. The legal definition of drunk is based on blood alcohol content (BAC). Even though they have varied in the past, every state now has a BAC limit of .08%. Ask anyone who has studied intoxication and they will tell you that .08% alcohol in the blood is an arbitrary creation. The blood alcohol test can be inaccurate by as much as 10%, and it doesn't really measure an individual's level of intoxication. There is no specific identifiable measurement of intoxication. Every individual's tolerance for alcohol is different.
The Office of Alcohol and Drug Education at Notre Dame University has published studies claiming that many factors go into determining whether an individual is intoxicated. The primary factors are weight and gender. Yes ladies, females get drunk on less alcohol than men. Other physical factors are body fat, medication taken and when the person last consumed food. Mental factors affecting the level of intoxication include a person's mood, fatigue, expectations and emotion. Notre Dame's studies have shown that impaired judgment, impaired coordination, slurred speech, diminished senses, intensified emotions and lowered inhibitions occur anywhere between .06 and .10% blood alcohol content depending on the individual.
In most states a person driving a car stopped by the police for any moving violation may be tested for inebriation if the officer thinks he smells alcohol. If the test measures the driver's BAC at .082%, he would most likely be arrested, go to jail and quite possibly have his life ruined. But if the person is a man weighing 200 pounds who has just eaten dinner, he is most likely not drunk. An innocent man is being unjustly punished. I can't help but wonder if that bothers the politically correct crowd's sense of justice.
We might as well also discuss another big time killer of people in America who are driving and riding in vehicles - cell phones. Driving while distracted is growing rapidly as a factor in fatal vehicle accidents, and everyone should know by now that talking and texting on cell phones is a primary cause of distraction. You can't drive down the street without seeing at least one out of every three drivers yacking into a cellphone or looking down to text. Nothing could be more dangerous to you, your passengers and other drivers on the same road than not paying attention to driving the vehicle. Should sell phones be banned while driving? My answer would be yes.
Human beings often feel compelled to stand in judgment of others. A lot of people have a superiority complex, believing they inherently qualify as the arbiters of what is right and what is wrong, who is good and who is evil, and what should be done to punish those who violate their standards. But many of these same people break some laws on a regular basis, I imagine because they think those laws don't apply to them. You can't drive down a street without having someone fly by you 20 miles an hour over the speed limit, oftentimes a woman talking on a cellphone with children in the car. Those people are accidents waiting to happen.
It is not a perfect world and never will be . Of course society must do everything it can to prevent as much of the shit from happening as possible. Laws must be established to discourage and limit the potential damage. But these laws must be rational, reasonable and effective. Emotional, knee-jerk reactions usually make things worse, not better. People need to chill out and use common sense and logical analysis rather than mindless, childish, head up the ass nonsense to deal with these issues.
Tragedies happen to innocent people in real life. There doesn't always have to be a reason. But I suppose if you don't own a gun, have never driven a vehicle after having had a drink, have never talked or texted on your cellphone while driving, don't watch violent television or movies, don't play violent video games, have never driven faster than the speed limit or run red lights, then you can feel imperious and authoritative enough to throw stones and call for drastic punishment of those who do. It may make you feel better, but it will not solve anything or prevent the tragedies.
Having said all that, let me make a prediction. None of it will matter. Personally, I don't have a problem with stricter controls on the sales of assault rifles or the prevention of gun sales through unlicensed dealers without background checks. Furthermore, the legal definition of mental illness should be strengthened and compliance improved. But the current anti-gun frenzy is unlikely to stop there. We live in a new America. Common sense and rationality no longer exist here. Politically correct attitudes and the feminization of society are now a done deal. The America we grew up in is gone. The strongest evidence for that fact is living in the White House. Prepare for your world to continue to be turned upside down.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
You've Got To Be Kidding
I highly recommend the weekly news magazine "The Week" to anyone who is interested in learning interesting things the major media sources do not report. It is a great source for learning both sides of the major issues we face rather than depending on the seriously biased reporting of the primary news networks and publications. The magazine's style is to present short summaries of articles from other sources that represent differing viewpoints regarding the debatable issues of the day. But they also include condensed versions of articles with information that is often quite enlightening.
I have not even finished reading the current issue (December 14, 2012) and have already found a lot of good stuff. For example, Michael Barone wrote in the National Review that collecting disability has become a career for many Americans. In 1960 there were 455,000 Americans receiving Social Security disability payments, which was created to help citizens who were too sick or disabled to work. That would have comprised .45% of all adults between the working ages of 18 and 65 (99.0 million). Fifty years later the number of people in the country receiving disability payments has exploded to 8.6 million, or 4.4% of Americans between 18 and 65 (194.2 million). In 50 years the percent on disability increased 10x while the working age population less than doubled.
The primary reason for this disability epidemic is that the government has considerably expanded its requirements to qualify. Now such unverifiable afflictions as mood disorders, depression, and back, knee and joint pain makes people eligible. The author claims that almost 50% of disability payments go to people who claim pain or mental disorders that no doctor can prove or disprove. He also maintained that over the two years 2010 and 2011 only 1,730,000 new jobs were created at the same time 790,000 folks went on disability. Seems that more people are gaming the system every day.
Another report from the Gulf News, based in the United Arab Emirates, laments the Obama administration's 180 degree turn from condemning the Muslim Brotherhood to "giving them red carpet treatment" following the 'Arab Spring', saying that is not only "pathetically opportunistic" but also dangerously naive. The report states the U.S. now seems to embrace the ridiculous notion that Islamists are the only credible political force in the Middle East, totally disregarding the region's liberals and particularly ignoring the younger folks who are doing the protesting. The Gulf States are already looking for new allies in Asia since America "swaps allies at the speed of light." More proof that Barack and Hillary have no clue regarding foreign policy.
My favorite piece from the magazine is a one sentence note published by Salon.com that households with incomes of under $13,000 a year spend an average of 9% on lottery tickets. Obviously there is a reason they are on the public dole - they are stupid. Finally, there is a report on the current baby bust in America. The Pew Research Center found that the U.S. birthrate in 2011 was the lowest ever recorded with only 63 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age. That compares with 71 in 1990 and 122 in the WWII postwar period. Some say Americans are so focused on their own personal fulfillment that they can't be bothered to raise a generation to replace them. Of course the feminazi's have gone apeshit over that comment saying it displays a malicious hostility to women. Regardless, with so few youngsters coming into the world, before long America will resemble a huge nursing home with no one to pay the freight.
All interesting stuff. Welcome to liberal Utopia.
I have not even finished reading the current issue (December 14, 2012) and have already found a lot of good stuff. For example, Michael Barone wrote in the National Review that collecting disability has become a career for many Americans. In 1960 there were 455,000 Americans receiving Social Security disability payments, which was created to help citizens who were too sick or disabled to work. That would have comprised .45% of all adults between the working ages of 18 and 65 (99.0 million). Fifty years later the number of people in the country receiving disability payments has exploded to 8.6 million, or 4.4% of Americans between 18 and 65 (194.2 million). In 50 years the percent on disability increased 10x while the working age population less than doubled.
The primary reason for this disability epidemic is that the government has considerably expanded its requirements to qualify. Now such unverifiable afflictions as mood disorders, depression, and back, knee and joint pain makes people eligible. The author claims that almost 50% of disability payments go to people who claim pain or mental disorders that no doctor can prove or disprove. He also maintained that over the two years 2010 and 2011 only 1,730,000 new jobs were created at the same time 790,000 folks went on disability. Seems that more people are gaming the system every day.
Another report from the Gulf News, based in the United Arab Emirates, laments the Obama administration's 180 degree turn from condemning the Muslim Brotherhood to "giving them red carpet treatment" following the 'Arab Spring', saying that is not only "pathetically opportunistic" but also dangerously naive. The report states the U.S. now seems to embrace the ridiculous notion that Islamists are the only credible political force in the Middle East, totally disregarding the region's liberals and particularly ignoring the younger folks who are doing the protesting. The Gulf States are already looking for new allies in Asia since America "swaps allies at the speed of light." More proof that Barack and Hillary have no clue regarding foreign policy.
My favorite piece from the magazine is a one sentence note published by Salon.com that households with incomes of under $13,000 a year spend an average of 9% on lottery tickets. Obviously there is a reason they are on the public dole - they are stupid. Finally, there is a report on the current baby bust in America. The Pew Research Center found that the U.S. birthrate in 2011 was the lowest ever recorded with only 63 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age. That compares with 71 in 1990 and 122 in the WWII postwar period. Some say Americans are so focused on their own personal fulfillment that they can't be bothered to raise a generation to replace them. Of course the feminazi's have gone apeshit over that comment saying it displays a malicious hostility to women. Regardless, with so few youngsters coming into the world, before long America will resemble a huge nursing home with no one to pay the freight.
All interesting stuff. Welcome to liberal Utopia.
Saturday, December 08, 2012
A Great Election?
The other day I drove downtown to have lunch with one of my best friends. As I entered his office his brother was leaving. The brother smiled and said, "Great Election!" He was serious. He has read some of my stuff so he knew I would not agree. Just a friendly dig. He is a good guy and extremely intelligent (Harvard Law Degree, but I won't hold that against him). He ran as the Democratic candidate for the U. S. House of Representatives a couple years ago in a district where he didn't really have a chance, so you know he is really into politics and policy. His comment, "Great election", got me thinking. What do I truly believe? So I jotted down a few random thoughts.
Politically speaking, I probably support as many liberal positions on the issues as I do conservative ones, but with a lot of caveats. For example -
- I support raising marginal tax rates on those making over $250,000 a year. It would be even better if tax preferences were eliminated. In an advanced society there really is no reason that billionaires and multi-millionaires can't kick in a little to help the indigent. Minor changes in tax rates at the top are not going to bring American industry to a halt. It is other policies of the Obama administration that will do that.
- A necessary safety net for those who truly need it is indisputable. Contrary to liberal propaganda, I don't know any nor have ever heard of any conservatives that do not agree with that premise. What we don't support is government handouts to those who don't need it.
- I think the troops should come home from Afghanistan. In fact, Obama's surge should never have happened. Contrary to Obama's view, Iraq was the good war and Afghanistan is not. Iraq was a relatively modern state ruled by a psychotic tyrant who murdered his own people and invaded his neighbors. It is well documented that he used weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq on rebellious Kurdish towns and in the long war against Iran. He had threatened the United States and American interests numerous times, and had displayed the will to carry those threats out. He was one of the primary supporters of Islamic terrorism. He had to go. In contrast, Afghans are tribal. Except for a minority of enlightened women, they want to live the way they have for centuries. We cannot impose democracy on people who don't want it.
- Universal health care may not be a bad idea as long as it would not be managed and controlled by the federal government.
- I support immigration for those who come to this country to work and improve the lives of themselves and their families, but only if they are willing to assimilate into our culture and learn the language. Multi-culturalism is fine as long as it does not prevent integration into society and the marketplace nor create ethnic rivalries.
- Preserving the environment is undeniably essential, but radical measures advocated by dedicated greenies based on fanatical belief in still disputable evidence is more than likely to have unintended consequences. I would not dispute that we may be in a period of global warming, even though the same folks going postal on the issue now are the same ones claiming global cooling forty years ago. But the climate is in a constant state of change. Always has been. Humans are probably contributing, but fossil fuels are not the only culprit. Urban development and building things where they don't belong are just as guilty. It doesn't make much sense to blame SUV's while banning construction of new nuclear power facilities and continuing to depend on coal fired power plants.
- I think it would be a good idea to legalize marijuana and then tax it.
- Abortion and gay rights? I could care less. These issues are not important as to whether the country survives, grows and prospers. Unfortunately a substantial number of people who vote consider these issues the most important issues in contention, and vote accordingly. That is sad, and irresponsible.
Except for abortion, gay rights and legalization of marijuana, those are all very important issues. But to me, they are not the most important. The most important are the issues that determine whether America will survive and continue to maintain our legacy of freedom and prosperity. In my opinion, except for the safety net that must be maintained for those who need it, none of the above issues are as critical to the future of America as the following -
- Private enterprise and free markets must be allowed to flourish. Dodd-Frank hinders economic growth, the EPA has assumed Gestapo powers, and government bailouts reward the guilty and punish the prudent. I know Bush started the bailouts, but Obama has quadrupled down.
- Entitlements must be reformed and cut substantially for a very simple reason. The country cannot afford the current programs and will implode if major changes are not made.
- A strong defense capability must be maintained because weapons in the arsenals of potential adversaries are getting more sophisticated and destructive. At the same time, Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea are not getting any friendlier.
- Government must stop practicing social and economic engineering. It is a misallocation of capital, a waste of resources, invites cronyism and corruption, and usually has detrimental unintended consequences.
- Welfare must be rationalized to stop handouts to those who don't need it and to encourage self-reliance and personal responsibility rather than make it a comfortable lifestyle.
- Tax reform designed to increase fairness must be implemented. That means eliminating tax preferences or eliminating the income tax altogether and adopting a value added sales tax.
- The federal government must stop manipulating the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, stop using regulatory agencies to bail out the failures of favored enterprises (public or private), and stop subsidizing politically correct agendas.
- Public employees should not be allowed to be members of labor unions. They are both workers and management, so there is no restraint on their demands while they enjoy no competition in providing their services.
- We will never have responsible government no matter which party is in charge until we have term limits. My suggestion would be one term of 8 years for the Senate, one term of 4 years for the House, and one term of 6 years for president. Allowing multiple terms means they spend most of their time campaigning rather than doing the country's business.
It seems to me that liberals focus on the minor, feel good about yourself issues while conservatives emphasize the major ones. Liberals are all about the selfish issues that create a new morality of permissiveness that makes any behavior acceptable, makes daily life more convenient with minimal effort, and hands out free stuff paid for by someone else. Far left socialists have taken over the Democratic Party and turned it into the party of free money, free condoms, free food, free phones and freebasing. Conversely, conservatives focus on the issues that determine future prosperity, survival and freedom.
The biggest hoax socialists play on America is their claim that their policies are for the people, especially the children. Look what they are doing for those children. They are burdening them with massive debts, worthless educations, and false expectations. For those in the inner cities it's even worse as they face abandonment, violence and hopelessness. Obama and his politburo are creating a society of parasites based on dependency rather than productive citizens motivated by personal responsibility and meaningful opportunities.
Why would anyone believe a country can survive and prosper when it mandates educational ignorance, bloated unproductive bureaucracy and income redistribution, which means taking from those who earn it and giving it to those who don't? Why would anyone believe a country that rewards lethargy and immorality while punishing prudence and ambition will long endure? The Obamaites might as well just give Americans free heroine and tell them to enjoy it right up to the end. They are no different than drug dealers providing the people short term highs for long term pain and destruction. Feel good now, pay the price later. Like it's Halloween every night - free candy.
So no, I can't agree that it was a great election. I can't see the Obama administration making the spending cuts and entitlement reforms that are necessary. I do see them placing more restraints on private enterprise and free markets that will limit economic growth. I also see them making reductions in our defense capabilities that could prove suicidal. The only result of the policies Obama is pursuing is either internal destruction from economic meltdown and social chaos or defeat and subjugation at the hands of a belligerent foreign power. It's not just a fiscal cliff he is leading us over. It is a real cliff, and the fall will be fatal if he is not stopped.
Politically speaking, I probably support as many liberal positions on the issues as I do conservative ones, but with a lot of caveats. For example -
- I support raising marginal tax rates on those making over $250,000 a year. It would be even better if tax preferences were eliminated. In an advanced society there really is no reason that billionaires and multi-millionaires can't kick in a little to help the indigent. Minor changes in tax rates at the top are not going to bring American industry to a halt. It is other policies of the Obama administration that will do that.
- A necessary safety net for those who truly need it is indisputable. Contrary to liberal propaganda, I don't know any nor have ever heard of any conservatives that do not agree with that premise. What we don't support is government handouts to those who don't need it.
- I think the troops should come home from Afghanistan. In fact, Obama's surge should never have happened. Contrary to Obama's view, Iraq was the good war and Afghanistan is not. Iraq was a relatively modern state ruled by a psychotic tyrant who murdered his own people and invaded his neighbors. It is well documented that he used weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq on rebellious Kurdish towns and in the long war against Iran. He had threatened the United States and American interests numerous times, and had displayed the will to carry those threats out. He was one of the primary supporters of Islamic terrorism. He had to go. In contrast, Afghans are tribal. Except for a minority of enlightened women, they want to live the way they have for centuries. We cannot impose democracy on people who don't want it.
- Universal health care may not be a bad idea as long as it would not be managed and controlled by the federal government.
- I support immigration for those who come to this country to work and improve the lives of themselves and their families, but only if they are willing to assimilate into our culture and learn the language. Multi-culturalism is fine as long as it does not prevent integration into society and the marketplace nor create ethnic rivalries.
- Preserving the environment is undeniably essential, but radical measures advocated by dedicated greenies based on fanatical belief in still disputable evidence is more than likely to have unintended consequences. I would not dispute that we may be in a period of global warming, even though the same folks going postal on the issue now are the same ones claiming global cooling forty years ago. But the climate is in a constant state of change. Always has been. Humans are probably contributing, but fossil fuels are not the only culprit. Urban development and building things where they don't belong are just as guilty. It doesn't make much sense to blame SUV's while banning construction of new nuclear power facilities and continuing to depend on coal fired power plants.
- I think it would be a good idea to legalize marijuana and then tax it.
- Abortion and gay rights? I could care less. These issues are not important as to whether the country survives, grows and prospers. Unfortunately a substantial number of people who vote consider these issues the most important issues in contention, and vote accordingly. That is sad, and irresponsible.
Except for abortion, gay rights and legalization of marijuana, those are all very important issues. But to me, they are not the most important. The most important are the issues that determine whether America will survive and continue to maintain our legacy of freedom and prosperity. In my opinion, except for the safety net that must be maintained for those who need it, none of the above issues are as critical to the future of America as the following -
- Private enterprise and free markets must be allowed to flourish. Dodd-Frank hinders economic growth, the EPA has assumed Gestapo powers, and government bailouts reward the guilty and punish the prudent. I know Bush started the bailouts, but Obama has quadrupled down.
- Entitlements must be reformed and cut substantially for a very simple reason. The country cannot afford the current programs and will implode if major changes are not made.
- A strong defense capability must be maintained because weapons in the arsenals of potential adversaries are getting more sophisticated and destructive. At the same time, Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea are not getting any friendlier.
- Government must stop practicing social and economic engineering. It is a misallocation of capital, a waste of resources, invites cronyism and corruption, and usually has detrimental unintended consequences.
- Welfare must be rationalized to stop handouts to those who don't need it and to encourage self-reliance and personal responsibility rather than make it a comfortable lifestyle.
- Tax reform designed to increase fairness must be implemented. That means eliminating tax preferences or eliminating the income tax altogether and adopting a value added sales tax.
- The federal government must stop manipulating the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, stop using regulatory agencies to bail out the failures of favored enterprises (public or private), and stop subsidizing politically correct agendas.
- Public employees should not be allowed to be members of labor unions. They are both workers and management, so there is no restraint on their demands while they enjoy no competition in providing their services.
- We will never have responsible government no matter which party is in charge until we have term limits. My suggestion would be one term of 8 years for the Senate, one term of 4 years for the House, and one term of 6 years for president. Allowing multiple terms means they spend most of their time campaigning rather than doing the country's business.
It seems to me that liberals focus on the minor, feel good about yourself issues while conservatives emphasize the major ones. Liberals are all about the selfish issues that create a new morality of permissiveness that makes any behavior acceptable, makes daily life more convenient with minimal effort, and hands out free stuff paid for by someone else. Far left socialists have taken over the Democratic Party and turned it into the party of free money, free condoms, free food, free phones and freebasing. Conversely, conservatives focus on the issues that determine future prosperity, survival and freedom.
The biggest hoax socialists play on America is their claim that their policies are for the people, especially the children. Look what they are doing for those children. They are burdening them with massive debts, worthless educations, and false expectations. For those in the inner cities it's even worse as they face abandonment, violence and hopelessness. Obama and his politburo are creating a society of parasites based on dependency rather than productive citizens motivated by personal responsibility and meaningful opportunities.
Why would anyone believe a country can survive and prosper when it mandates educational ignorance, bloated unproductive bureaucracy and income redistribution, which means taking from those who earn it and giving it to those who don't? Why would anyone believe a country that rewards lethargy and immorality while punishing prudence and ambition will long endure? The Obamaites might as well just give Americans free heroine and tell them to enjoy it right up to the end. They are no different than drug dealers providing the people short term highs for long term pain and destruction. Feel good now, pay the price later. Like it's Halloween every night - free candy.
So no, I can't agree that it was a great election. I can't see the Obama administration making the spending cuts and entitlement reforms that are necessary. I do see them placing more restraints on private enterprise and free markets that will limit economic growth. I also see them making reductions in our defense capabilities that could prove suicidal. The only result of the policies Obama is pursuing is either internal destruction from economic meltdown and social chaos or defeat and subjugation at the hands of a belligerent foreign power. It's not just a fiscal cliff he is leading us over. It is a real cliff, and the fall will be fatal if he is not stopped.
Thursday, December 06, 2012
Greece or Egypt?
Which country are we becoming, Greece or Egypt? Greece is the ultimate result of the welfare state. Greeks just sat back, enjoyed the free goodies from government as long as they lasted, and then imploded with violent protests. Egypt is the ultimate result of an elected president making an unprecedented power grab. Egyptians aren't buying the dictatorial decrees their leader is forcing down their throats, and the country is exploding with violent protests.
As usual, Barack Obama is controlling the debate about the fiscal cliff and the government's budget deficits by arguing about the small potatoes and ignoring the elephant in the room. The discussion is all about tax increases on the wealthy. I will not argue against tax rate increases on the top 2% or even 5% of income earners, but I would argue that eliminating tax preferences (loopholes) would be a much better solution. But no matter what the outcome of the argument, the changes would raise government revenues by a drop in the bucket. Spending is the real issue, and Obama is successfully delivering a head fake so he can continue to expand the socialist welfare state. Read the article referenced below if you are not convinced.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323501404578161162667441912-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNjEwNDYyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email
Obama is not negotiating and not compromising - he is demanding in true imperial dictator fashion. The latest demand, to do away with the debt ceiling limit, reveals his intention to continue to expand government spending as if money grows on trees. Obama is demanding to effectively eiliminate Congressional control of government spending, which is explicity one of the basic duties of Congress under the Constitution. Only 3 out of 10 eligible voters voted for Obama but he is now assuming autocratic powers. This is getting serious folks.
How will Americans respond? Do Americans really want to be governed by an autocratic dictator? It is time for any responsible person that may be left in the major media networks to get a grip and realize their mistake in promoting this tyrant and begin to question what is happening before things start to get real ugly. We may soon find out if Americans still have balls like the Egyptians or have been castrated like the Greeks. Just remember that whichever road we are starting down, they both end in violence.
As usual, Barack Obama is controlling the debate about the fiscal cliff and the government's budget deficits by arguing about the small potatoes and ignoring the elephant in the room. The discussion is all about tax increases on the wealthy. I will not argue against tax rate increases on the top 2% or even 5% of income earners, but I would argue that eliminating tax preferences (loopholes) would be a much better solution. But no matter what the outcome of the argument, the changes would raise government revenues by a drop in the bucket. Spending is the real issue, and Obama is successfully delivering a head fake so he can continue to expand the socialist welfare state. Read the article referenced below if you are not convinced.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323501404578161162667441912-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNjEwNDYyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email
Obama is not negotiating and not compromising - he is demanding in true imperial dictator fashion. The latest demand, to do away with the debt ceiling limit, reveals his intention to continue to expand government spending as if money grows on trees. Obama is demanding to effectively eiliminate Congressional control of government spending, which is explicity one of the basic duties of Congress under the Constitution. Only 3 out of 10 eligible voters voted for Obama but he is now assuming autocratic powers. This is getting serious folks.
How will Americans respond? Do Americans really want to be governed by an autocratic dictator? It is time for any responsible person that may be left in the major media networks to get a grip and realize their mistake in promoting this tyrant and begin to question what is happening before things start to get real ugly. We may soon find out if Americans still have balls like the Egyptians or have been castrated like the Greeks. Just remember that whichever road we are starting down, they both end in violence.
Wednesday, December 05, 2012
It's Your Fault
Ever since Kansas City Chief's linebacker Jovan Belcher killed his girlfriend and then himself the liberal know-it-alls have been filling the media with excuses. Those who have picked up on the current fad of blaming the violence of football for causing head injuries have claimed that as the reason for this tragedy well before there has been any evidence. They have called for banning football. Of course the television moguls shudder at the thought of banning their meal ticket, so Bob Costas had to get on a soapbox during halftime of Sunday night's Cowboys - Eagles game and blame the long standing primary liberal target - guns. Since guns are the cause, they must be banned. (By the way, guns aren't the problem, nor are bullets. I'd say it's the trigger.)
Naturally, in today's increasingly feminized America, a growing popular cause of Belcher's action was to blame it all on being a man. Yes, it's true. Articles have been written and talk shows have discussed it. Somehow it is due to masculinity, machismo, virility, manliness. Supposedly men are programmed to kill. Never mind the fact that the act of killing a woman, and particularly the mother of your child, would be the most unmanly thing a man could do. Like everything else, liberals are changing the definition of what it means to be a man.
It would be interesting to see some statistics on the percentage of white, black, Latino and Asian men who murder people. It would also be interesting to see the number of each ethnic group who use guns to commit those murders. If the statistics indicated that a particular ethnic group had a significantly higher incidence of participation in those crimes, then a rational inference would be that perhaps the primary cause is genetic. Of course that would be so politically incorrect as to be preposterous and unthinkable.
Perhaps another conclusion could be reached if the analysis of murders and the use of guns was based on either socio-economic status or social environment, i.e., inner-city versus suburban versus rural. Those statistics might also prove to be politically incorrect as they are more than likely to show that the social policies imposed by the liberals over the last fifty years have not only been a major failure, but have made modern society more polarized, coldhearted and malicious. Personally, I would bet money that this is the primary cause of America's violent nature. Of course any evidence supporting this conclusion would also be swept under the rug.
Not that any of that really matters. It is becoming a new America we live in, one that may soon see the disappearance of guns, football and real men. Not only will that be an America I do not want to live in, it will be an America that cannot long survive. It's a competitive and dangerous world out there. The women and girliemen are taking over. We'll see how that works out for them.
Naturally, in today's increasingly feminized America, a growing popular cause of Belcher's action was to blame it all on being a man. Yes, it's true. Articles have been written and talk shows have discussed it. Somehow it is due to masculinity, machismo, virility, manliness. Supposedly men are programmed to kill. Never mind the fact that the act of killing a woman, and particularly the mother of your child, would be the most unmanly thing a man could do. Like everything else, liberals are changing the definition of what it means to be a man.
It would be interesting to see some statistics on the percentage of white, black, Latino and Asian men who murder people. It would also be interesting to see the number of each ethnic group who use guns to commit those murders. If the statistics indicated that a particular ethnic group had a significantly higher incidence of participation in those crimes, then a rational inference would be that perhaps the primary cause is genetic. Of course that would be so politically incorrect as to be preposterous and unthinkable.
Perhaps another conclusion could be reached if the analysis of murders and the use of guns was based on either socio-economic status or social environment, i.e., inner-city versus suburban versus rural. Those statistics might also prove to be politically incorrect as they are more than likely to show that the social policies imposed by the liberals over the last fifty years have not only been a major failure, but have made modern society more polarized, coldhearted and malicious. Personally, I would bet money that this is the primary cause of America's violent nature. Of course any evidence supporting this conclusion would also be swept under the rug.
Not that any of that really matters. It is becoming a new America we live in, one that may soon see the disappearance of guns, football and real men. Not only will that be an America I do not want to live in, it will be an America that cannot long survive. It's a competitive and dangerous world out there. The women and girliemen are taking over. We'll see how that works out for them.
Monday, December 03, 2012
What The Hell Happened?
For some time now the world has been turned upside down from the one I remember. Socialism is now in vogue while capitalism is under attack. Investors are throwing massive amounts of money at bonds at the lowest interest rates ever while selling all their stocks, including the high quality ones which remain profitable, have higher dividend yields than so-called safe bonds, and record levels of cash on their books. And interestingly, public employees now have some of the best compensation packages to be found. My father was a career employee of the federal government bureaucracy, and government workers in the 60's and 70's were among the lowest paid people in America. Now seven out of ten of the wealthiest counties in America surround Washington, D.C.
An article in the Wall Street Journal today, December 3, 2012, provided further evidence that things have definitely changed. It said that the average compensation for an employee of one of the 32 largest financial companies, primarily banks and securities firms, will be $128,089 this year, a new record. These jobs are not rocket science. Investment banks and brokerage firms don't need Ph.D.'s. They need people with good bullshit. Some folks in the business earn their money by trying to do their best for clients and customers, but most only care about how much money goes in their own pockets. They don't have to provide value-added service, they only have to be able to sell the product to make the big bucks. Bankers are not intellectually challenged much either. They just need people who understand a little math, can fill out forms, operate some computer programs, and figure out that they must lend money to borrowers at a higher rate than they pay depositors for that money.
When I had my first job right out of college working for a bank in the early 70's, bankers were among the lowest paid people of any industry. Now they are at or near the top. I would like someone to explain to me why folks who have relatively easy jobs but still manage to inflict devastation on the economies and financial systems of Western Civilization should make 2.5 times the $52,000 median income of all Americans.
Working for a bank or the government is now among the highest paid jobs in America. Forty years ago who would have known? It does makes you wonder, though. Why is it that folks who do the most damage to the country are the highest paid?
An article in the Wall Street Journal today, December 3, 2012, provided further evidence that things have definitely changed. It said that the average compensation for an employee of one of the 32 largest financial companies, primarily banks and securities firms, will be $128,089 this year, a new record. These jobs are not rocket science. Investment banks and brokerage firms don't need Ph.D.'s. They need people with good bullshit. Some folks in the business earn their money by trying to do their best for clients and customers, but most only care about how much money goes in their own pockets. They don't have to provide value-added service, they only have to be able to sell the product to make the big bucks. Bankers are not intellectually challenged much either. They just need people who understand a little math, can fill out forms, operate some computer programs, and figure out that they must lend money to borrowers at a higher rate than they pay depositors for that money.
When I had my first job right out of college working for a bank in the early 70's, bankers were among the lowest paid people of any industry. Now they are at or near the top. I would like someone to explain to me why folks who have relatively easy jobs but still manage to inflict devastation on the economies and financial systems of Western Civilization should make 2.5 times the $52,000 median income of all Americans.
Working for a bank or the government is now among the highest paid jobs in America. Forty years ago who would have known? It does makes you wonder, though. Why is it that folks who do the most damage to the country are the highest paid?
Saturday, December 01, 2012
Dear Boomers
Dear Boomers,
We regret to inform you that the country you inherited from your parents, grew up in, whose freedom and prosperity you have enjoyed, has passed away. It has moved on to join Rome and Ancient Greece, the other great Western civilizations of history. The country suffered its demise following five decades of continual assault from progressive forces that in the fall of 2012 finally defeated the principles, philosophy and values that had produced the greatest country in the history of the world.
A new culture has taken its place, one of capitulation to divisive multi-culturalism, personal dependency, unaffordable entitlements, social immorality, and economic destruction. The takeover has been accompanied by central government dominance and control of economic activity, mandated compliance with politically correct personal behavior, and the denial of individual rights. Special interest group favoritism and autocratic manipulation have taken charge. And we boomers let it happen.
Bob Dylan wrote the anthem of the baby boom generation, 'The Times They Are A-Changin', about the social revolution of the 1960's. It told the older generation, the one now known as The Greatest Generation that through unselfish personal sacrifice preserved freedom and democracy in brutal wars against cruel dictators, to get out of the way of what they don't understand. While America prospered and security was maintained thanks to the deeds of that older generation, the children were allowed to run wild. They embarked on an idealistic mission to create the perfect society, where everyone did what they want, lived in peace and harmony, sang kumbaya, and lived happily ever after. Unfortunately, like all good intentions based on fantasy rather than reality, it didn't work. Instead they created a society that lived beyond its means, resulting in a dangerously divided, security challenged, bankrupt country on the verge of implosion.
Today a new generation has what they think is a new social revolution underway in America. But it is not really new. Instead of learning from the previous experience, the new generation apparently believes we can double down on the ideology and policies that created this situation in the first place as a solution to work our way out of it. We continually spent more than we earned and created a colossal debt problem. So this generation thinks we need to create even more debt. We created too much dependency on government. So the brilliant young folks think we must make people even more dependent. We placed too much of the tax burden on those who are productive, so they think we must tax them even more. The only difference of the new revolution is that it is leading even faster down the road to national insolvency, dependence on government, social polarization and eventual self-destruction.
According to the exit polls of the 2012 election, the National Election Pool reported that voters 65 and older voted for the Romney-Ryan ticket over Obama-Biden by 58% to 41%, and the 45 to 65 age group picked Romney-Ryan by 51% to 47%. Maybe the voting age needs to be raised. But experience apparently means nothing anymore. By the age of 40 we have all seen and heard the outrageous lies, empty promises, blatant hypocrisy, creative campaign propaganda and demonization of opponents, and we no longer buy into it. We know it is all bullshit. Never-the-less, the younger generations who voted Obama back into office will still blame us down the road when they find themselves impoverished, oppressed, despondent, insecure and with no way out of their situation. They will blame us for not telling them. We did, but they weren't listening.
Certainly not all of our children turned out stupid. After all, 40% of those under 30 were smart enough to recognize the Obama scam and voted for Romney. But as parents, boomers are responsible for those who drank the Kool-Aid and handed the country back to an arrogant, inexperienced, left wing ideologue who has no clue about how to run any organization, let alone the most powerful nation on earth. Boomers gave their kids everything without making them earn it. That was a big mistake.
Maybe it is time for the baby boom generation to wake up and make a stand, to ignore Dylan and get in the faces of the self-centered, permissive, unethical, immoral society we created and finally discipline our coddled, spoiled, over-indulged offspring. If we would, maybe we could recover our own sense of responsibility and fulfill our obligation of maintaining our heritage by defending democracy and freedom from the assault of the autocratic self-proclaimed know-it-alls of the new age Progressives.
Unfortunately, given the results of the latest election, it looks like it is too late. We will more likely be known as the generation that lost America. Authority has passed from the experienced to the inexperienced, from competence to incompetence, from collaberation to confrontation, from what works in the real world to what intellectual eggheads fantasize in ivory towers and upscale urban drawing rooms. Too bad. We had a good thing going.
We regret to inform you that the country you inherited from your parents, grew up in, whose freedom and prosperity you have enjoyed, has passed away. It has moved on to join Rome and Ancient Greece, the other great Western civilizations of history. The country suffered its demise following five decades of continual assault from progressive forces that in the fall of 2012 finally defeated the principles, philosophy and values that had produced the greatest country in the history of the world.
A new culture has taken its place, one of capitulation to divisive multi-culturalism, personal dependency, unaffordable entitlements, social immorality, and economic destruction. The takeover has been accompanied by central government dominance and control of economic activity, mandated compliance with politically correct personal behavior, and the denial of individual rights. Special interest group favoritism and autocratic manipulation have taken charge. And we boomers let it happen.
Bob Dylan wrote the anthem of the baby boom generation, 'The Times They Are A-Changin', about the social revolution of the 1960's. It told the older generation, the one now known as The Greatest Generation that through unselfish personal sacrifice preserved freedom and democracy in brutal wars against cruel dictators, to get out of the way of what they don't understand. While America prospered and security was maintained thanks to the deeds of that older generation, the children were allowed to run wild. They embarked on an idealistic mission to create the perfect society, where everyone did what they want, lived in peace and harmony, sang kumbaya, and lived happily ever after. Unfortunately, like all good intentions based on fantasy rather than reality, it didn't work. Instead they created a society that lived beyond its means, resulting in a dangerously divided, security challenged, bankrupt country on the verge of implosion.
Today a new generation has what they think is a new social revolution underway in America. But it is not really new. Instead of learning from the previous experience, the new generation apparently believes we can double down on the ideology and policies that created this situation in the first place as a solution to work our way out of it. We continually spent more than we earned and created a colossal debt problem. So this generation thinks we need to create even more debt. We created too much dependency on government. So the brilliant young folks think we must make people even more dependent. We placed too much of the tax burden on those who are productive, so they think we must tax them even more. The only difference of the new revolution is that it is leading even faster down the road to national insolvency, dependence on government, social polarization and eventual self-destruction.
According to the exit polls of the 2012 election, the National Election Pool reported that voters 65 and older voted for the Romney-Ryan ticket over Obama-Biden by 58% to 41%, and the 45 to 65 age group picked Romney-Ryan by 51% to 47%. Maybe the voting age needs to be raised. But experience apparently means nothing anymore. By the age of 40 we have all seen and heard the outrageous lies, empty promises, blatant hypocrisy, creative campaign propaganda and demonization of opponents, and we no longer buy into it. We know it is all bullshit. Never-the-less, the younger generations who voted Obama back into office will still blame us down the road when they find themselves impoverished, oppressed, despondent, insecure and with no way out of their situation. They will blame us for not telling them. We did, but they weren't listening.
Certainly not all of our children turned out stupid. After all, 40% of those under 30 were smart enough to recognize the Obama scam and voted for Romney. But as parents, boomers are responsible for those who drank the Kool-Aid and handed the country back to an arrogant, inexperienced, left wing ideologue who has no clue about how to run any organization, let alone the most powerful nation on earth. Boomers gave their kids everything without making them earn it. That was a big mistake.
Maybe it is time for the baby boom generation to wake up and make a stand, to ignore Dylan and get in the faces of the self-centered, permissive, unethical, immoral society we created and finally discipline our coddled, spoiled, over-indulged offspring. If we would, maybe we could recover our own sense of responsibility and fulfill our obligation of maintaining our heritage by defending democracy and freedom from the assault of the autocratic self-proclaimed know-it-alls of the new age Progressives.
Unfortunately, given the results of the latest election, it looks like it is too late. We will more likely be known as the generation that lost America. Authority has passed from the experienced to the inexperienced, from competence to incompetence, from collaberation to confrontation, from what works in the real world to what intellectual eggheads fantasize in ivory towers and upscale urban drawing rooms. Too bad. We had a good thing going.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)